Floor Statements

Mr. President, on behalf of all Arkansans, I want to congratulate the University of Arkansas Razorback Track and Field program on their 17th NCAA Indoor Track and Field championship this past weekend at the Randal Tyson Track Center in Fayetteville, AR. This is the program's 37th overall NCAA crown under the direction of Head Coach John McDonnell. At the University of Arkansas, Coach McDonnell has led his teams to more national championships, triple crowns and conference titles than any other coach in history. His most extraordinary accomplishment is winning 29 consecutive conference cross country championships. He has coached 20 Olympians and over 140 athletes to All-American status. We celebrate Coach John McDonnell's success at the University of Arkansas and his continued dedication to the Razorback Track and Field and Cross Country programs.

Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to a true American hero from my State--Mr. Roy Rowe of Mena, AR. In the coming weeks, Mr. Rowe will be awarded a Presidential Unit Citation for his service in the U.S. Army during the Second World War, an honor that is richly deserved.

Roy Rowe was inducted into the U.S. Army in October 1942. Serving in the Pacific theater, Mr. Rowe was assigned to the 96th Infantry Division. Over the course of three months beginning in April 1945, the 96th Division landed on the beaches of Okinawa as part of the greatest concentration of land, sea, and air power ever assembled in the Pacific. The battle for Okinawa was the costliest single battle of the Pacific war for both sides. In terms of U.S. casualties, Okinawa was second only to the Battle of the Bulge. Of U.S. Army personnel, 4,436 were killed in action, and 17,343 were wounded. Of U.S. Marines, 2,793 were killed and 13,434 were wounded. Japanese casualties numbered 107,539 killed in action and 10,755 captured. It was a terrible price to pay for both sides, but the result brought the Allied forces to Japan's doorstep

and helped to precipitate the war's end in August 1945. I should also note that, following the war's end, the United States and Japan entered into a long period of geopolitical alliance, cultural goodwill, and economic partnership, and to this day we count the Japanese people among our closest friends in the world community--a fortunate result stemming from a long and difficult war.

As rifleman, Roy Rowe fought alongside his fellow soldiers to secure Okinawa as a base for launching an attack on Japan. He was awarded numerous decorations for his service, including the Purple Heart, the Asiatic-Pacific Ribbon, the Philippine Liberation Ribbon, the American Theater of Operation Ribbon, and the Silver Star Medal. Mr. Rowe's service ended in October 1945, three years after it had begun. His is a service record that he can be proud of, and we're proud of him for it. Through his service to his country and his willingness to endure great personal sacrifice to defend our freedoms, Roy Rowe represents the most admirable qualities in the American spirit.

In this new century, in these difficult times, when a new generation of young Americans is taking up arms to defend our freedoms against the threats posed by international terrorism and rogue nations, let's remember Roy Rowe's example of courage, patriotism and selflessness. I am honored to pay tribute to him on the floor of the Senate today.

Madam President, I support the prevention package amendment offered today by Senators Murray and Reid to reduce the high rates of unintended pregnancy in our country as well as improve access to prenatal and postpartum care for pregnant women.

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense approach to the health of women and their babies. If Senators really want to make our country a better place for babies, women, and their families, they should support this amendment.

Half of the 4 million pregnancies that occur in the United States every year are unintended. This amendment seeks to curb that trend by helping women better plan their pregnancies, improving knowledge of and access to contraception, and expanding insurance coverage for prenatal and postpartum care. If the provisions in this amendment were already law, I sincerely believe we wouldn't be here debating the underlying bill.

A recent report showed that abortion rates are at their lowest level since 1974. Most of this decline is attributed to women becoming better educated about how to care for their bodies. We are gaining greater access to safe contraceptive measures. That is the good news.

However, while there was an overall decline in abortion rates, the abortion rate among women of lower economic status actually rose. These women face greater barriers to contraception. To really reduce abortions in our country, we need to ensure that all women--poor and wealthy--have access to affordable and timely contraceptives.

This prevention amendment makes significant progress towards that goal. First, the amendment makes contraception more affordable for privately insured women, an important provision based on bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Snowe and Reid. This provision establishes parity for prescription contraception by requiring private health plans to cover FDA-approved prescription contraceptives and related medical services to the same extent that they cover prescription drugs and other outpatient medical services. By making contraception affordable for working women and families, this provision takes a positive step forward in the effort to reduce abortions in our country.

Second, this amendment seeks to make women and health care providers more aware of emergency contraception, which is really just a specified dose of standard birth control pills that can be taken up to 72 hours after unprotected sex. Despite the potential for emergency contraception to drastically reduce unintended pregnancies and the need for abortion, it is underutilized and misunderstood. This amendment seeks to correct that. Emergency contraception is FDA-approved to be a safe and effective form of contraception, and it is often the only contraception option for women who have been raped.

Of the 300,000 women in our country who report rapes every year, 25,000 of them become pregnant. Women who have been raped deserve to be given information about emergency contraception when they seek medical help following their sexual assault. Rapes can happen at any time, day or night. Oftentimes, women are treated in hospital emergency rooms. This amendment also ensures that hospitals counsel raped women about their risk of pregnancy and offer them emergency contraception as an option. This policy is in line with emergency care standards established by the American Medical Association and could significantly reduce future abortions.

Lastly, I am glad that this amendment gives States the option of covering pregnant women in their Children's Health Insurance Programs. Based on bipartisan legislation we passed unanimously in the Finance Committee last summer, this bill allows coverage for prenatal care, delivery, and postpartum care. This provision could drastically improve the lives and health of thousands of women and children throughout our Nation.

The infant and maternal mortality statistics in this great country of ours are shocking. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the United States ranks 28th in the world in infant mortality. We rank behind countries like Cuba and the Czech Republic. It is amazing to me that the United States lags far behind these nations in this area. Another shocking statistic from the CDC is that the United States ranks 21st in the world in maternal mortality. The World Health Organization estimates that the U.S. maternal mortality rate is double that of Canada.

When we are ahead of every other nation in almost every other arena, I am deeply saddened that we have not taken a course of action that would prove to the rest of the world that we truly do value life in this country, and that we want to do all we possibly can to ensure the healthy delivery of children, as well as the health of their mothers.

The fact is, we know how to address this problem. The solution lies in prenatal and postpartum care. Studies have shown that this care significantly reduces infant mortality, maternal mortality, and the number of low-birthweight babies. Prenatal care is also cost-effective. For every dollar we spend on prenatal care, we save more than 6 dollars in neonatal intensive care costs. Pre-term births are one of the most expensive reasons for a hospital stay in the United States.

I cannot emphasize enough the great opportunity we have here in the Senate to drastically improve the lives and health of women and babies in our country. We must allow States to cover pregnant women under SCHIP--the States want to do it, and the Federal government should give them the option.

I do not understand why anyone would stand in the way of common sense, practical solutions like the ones offered in this amendment. If my colleagues are serious in their quest to reduce abortions, they will support this amendment. Instead of debating the same bill we did 5 years ago--a bill that will ultimately be decided by the courts--let's do something proactive for our Nation's most vulnerable women and families. I urge all my colleagues to support this amendment today.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Access to Diabetes Screening Services Act of 2003'' with my friends Senators Collins and Bingaman. This bill will help to bring the epidemic of diabetes under control by providing Medicare coverage for laboratory diagnostic tests and other services which are used to screen for diabetes. Medicare cannot currently provide these screening services because they are prohibited to do so by Federal law.

Diabetes has reached epidemic proportions among adults in the United States. The latest figures published by the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, in the January 1, 2003, edition of the ``Journal of the American Medical Association'' show that 7.9 percent of the American population has diabetes. The CDC believes that if trends continue, more than 10 percent of all Americans will have diabetes by the year 2010. Even today our Nation is feeling the effects of this disease--diabetes is the Nation's sixth leading cause of death.

Diabetes strikes even harder in our nation's minority and emerging majority populations. Today, the CDC estimates that 11.9 percent of the African American population and nine percent of the Hispanic population has diabetes. Without a doubt, diabetes is now truly the epidemic of our time.

These rising rates are especially evident among our Nation's aging population. Currently almost seven million Americans age 65 and older, or over 20 percent of seniors, have diabetes. Roughly 20 percent of seniors age 65 and older have a newly identified condition called pre- diabetes, which if left untreated will develop into diabetes. An additional 40,000 people living with diabetes and end-stage renal disease under the age of 65 participate in the Medicare program.

Even more distressing is the fact that approximately one third of the 7 million seniors with diabetes, or 2.3 million people, are undiagnosed. They simply do not know that they have this very serious condition--a condition whose complications include heart disease, stroke, vision loss and blindness, amputations, and kidney disease.

My own home State of Arkansas has had first-hand experience with the rising diabetes rates. Arkansas ranks

fifth in the Nation for diabetes incidence. Recent studies show that 8.9 percent of all Arkansas adults had diagnosed diabetes, and over one million Arkansans are at risk for undiagnosed diabetes.

Our Nation is not yet doing enough to manage this preventable and controllable disease. Last week, the National Institutes of Health, the CDC and the American Diabetes Association announced that the direct costs of treating diabetes grew by more than 50 percent between 1997 and 2002, from $44 billion to $91.8 billion. One of every ten dollars spent on healthcare in America is now spent on diabetes, and the average per capita cost of healthcare for a person living with diabetes is $13,243 versus $2,560 for a typical American without diabetes.

Those in the medical community and the federal government are only too aware of the rising prevalence and serious nature of diabetes. The Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Health and Human Services recently joined together in a national education campaign to inform people about diabetes and encourage people age 45 and older to get screened for diabetes.

Unfortunately, current law does not allow Medicare to reimburse for diabetes testing, even if a patient presents serious risk factors for diabetes such as obesity, high blood pressure, or high cholesterol. Most shockingly, even if a patient is experiencing early evidence of diabetes complications, such as blindness or kidney disease, Medicare still cannot reimburse a physician for diabetes testing.

This nonsensical omission of diabetes screening coverage is even more shocking in light of the fact that about 25 percent of the Medicare budget currently is devoted to providing medical care to seniors living with diabetes. In 1999, Arkansas spent $1.6 billion on direct and indirect costs of diabetes. The amount Arkansas spent on diabetes in 2002 is undoubtedly higher in light of the cost data available. Why are we continuing to react to diabetes and its complications instead of proactively screening our Medicare beneficiaries for this common and costly disease? This screening can identify the disease, even before any symptoms have appeared, and has the potential to save and improve thousands of lives. In addition, this screening will potentially help prevent countless cases of end-stage renal disease, blindness and amputations--preventable complications of the diabetes that are draining Medicare of vital resources.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists strongly believes that patients with diabetes should be identified as early as possible in their illness. We have the technology to do this through screening.

I cannot overstate the need for this legislation. When faced with the rising prevalence of diabetes, the high percentage of seniors who already have the disease, the alarmingly high number of seniors who have diabetes but do not know it yet, the growing number of seniors living with preventable diabetes complications, and the high cost associated with diabetes treatment, it is obvious that Medicare should provide coverage for diabetes screening.

Our Nation must do more to battle the epidemic of diabetes through prevention, detection and treatment. This legislation will make detection of a deadly disease available to all Medicare enrollees. The American Diabetes Association has identified Medicare screening coverage as a top legislative priority, and I have worked closely with them to craft this legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to give serious consideration to cosponsoring and actively supporting the Diabetes Screening Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the ``Access to Diabetes Screening Services Act of 2003'' with my friends Senators Collins and Bingaman. This bill will help to bring the epidemic of diabetes under control by providing Medicare coverage for laboratory diagnostic tests and other services which are used to screen for diabetes. Medicare cannot currently provide these screening services because they are prohibited to do so by Federal law.

Diabetes has reached epidemic proportions among adults in the United States. The latest figures published by the Centers for Disease Control, CDC, in the January 1, 2003, edition of the ``Journal of the American Medical Association'' show that 7.9 percent of the American population has diabetes. The CDC believes that if trends continue, more than 10 percent of all Americans will have diabetes by the year 2010. Even today our Nation is feeling the effects of this disease--diabetes is the Nation's sixth leading cause of death.

Diabetes strikes even harder in our nation's minority and emerging majority populations. Today, the CDC estimates that 11.9 percent of the African American population and nine percent of the Hispanic population has diabetes. Without a doubt, diabetes is now truly the epidemic of our time.

These rising rates are especially evident among our Nation's aging population. Currently almost seven million Americans age 65 and older, or over 20 percent of seniors, have diabetes. Roughly 20 percent of seniors age 65 and older have a newly identified condition called pre- diabetes, which if left untreated will develop into diabetes. An additional 40,000 people living with diabetes and end-stage renal disease under the age of 65 participate in the Medicare program.

Even more distressing is the fact that approximately one third of the 7 million seniors with diabetes, or 2.3 million people, are undiagnosed. They simply do not know that they have this very serious condition--a condition whose complications include heart disease, stroke, vision loss and blindness, amputations, and kidney disease.

My own home State of Arkansas has had first-hand experience with the rising diabetes rates. Arkansas ranks

fifth in the Nation for diabetes incidence. Recent studies show that 8.9 percent of all Arkansas adults had diagnosed diabetes, and over one million Arkansans are at risk for undiagnosed diabetes.

Our Nation is not yet doing enough to manage this preventable and controllable disease. Last week, the National Institutes of Health, the CDC and the American Diabetes Association announced that the direct costs of treating diabetes grew by more than 50 percent between 1997 and 2002, from $44 billion to $91.8 billion. One of every ten dollars spent on healthcare in America is now spent on diabetes, and the average per capita cost of healthcare for a person living with diabetes is $13,243 versus $2,560 for a typical American without diabetes.

Those in the medical community and the federal government are only too aware of the rising prevalence and serious nature of diabetes. The Centers for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Health and Human Services recently joined together in a national education campaign to inform people about diabetes and encourage people age 45 and older to get screened for diabetes.

Unfortunately, current law does not allow Medicare to reimburse for diabetes testing, even if a patient presents serious risk factors for diabetes such as obesity, high blood pressure, or high cholesterol. Most shockingly, even if a patient is experiencing early evidence of diabetes complications, such as blindness or kidney disease, Medicare still cannot reimburse a physician for diabetes testing.

This nonsensical omission of diabetes screening coverage is even more shocking in light of the fact that about 25 percent of the Medicare budget currently is devoted to providing medical care to seniors living with diabetes. In 1999, Arkansas spent $1.6 billion on direct and indirect costs of diabetes. The amount Arkansas spent on diabetes in 2002 is undoubtedly higher in light of the cost data available. Why are we continuing to react to diabetes and its complications instead of proactively screening our Medicare beneficiaries for this common and costly disease? This screening can identify the disease, even before any symptoms have appeared, and has the potential to save and improve thousands of lives. In addition, this screening will potentially help prevent countless cases of end-stage renal disease, blindness and amputations--preventable complications of the diabetes that are draining Medicare of vital resources.

The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists strongly believes that patients with diabetes should be identified as early as possible in their illness. We have the technology to do this through screening.

I cannot overstate the need for this legislation. When faced with the rising prevalence of diabetes, the high percentage of seniors who already have the disease, the alarmingly high number of seniors who have diabetes but do not know it yet, the growing number of seniors living with preventable diabetes complications, and the high cost associated with diabetes treatment, it is obvious that Medicare should provide coverage for diabetes screening.

Our Nation must do more to battle the epidemic of diabetes through prevention, detection and treatment. This legislation will make detection of a deadly disease available to all Medicare enrollees. The American Diabetes Association has identified Medicare screening coverage as a top legislative priority, and I have worked closely with them to craft this legislation. I urge all of my colleagues to give serious consideration to cosponsoring and actively supporting the Diabetes Screening Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the American troops in the National Guard and Reserves who are placing themselves in harm's way to defend our Nation against the threats of terrorism and global instability.

As of Wednesday, March 5, there are 176,553 Reservists and Guardsmen nationwide activated in the war on terrorism and in preparation for a potential war against Iraq. Currently, there are 1,875 Arkansans activated in the Guard and Reserves. I ask unanimous consent that the attached list be printed in the Record following my remarks.

Mr. President, the sacrifices that these men and women are making to protect our freedoms, depend our libraries, and ensure regional and global stability. We are very proud of each and every one of them, and we owe all of them a tremendous debt of gratitude for their service and for their dedication to their country. We look forward to welcoming them home safely.

Exhibit No. 1

arkansas troops currently activated

Amry National Guard (947 Arkansas):

N. Little Rock: State Area Command, 4.

Ft. Smith: 2nd Battalion, 142nd Field Artillery, HQ, 42.

Lincoln: 2nd Battalion, 142nd Field Artillery, SVC Battery,

20.

Van Buren: 2nd Battalion, 142nd Field Artillery, Battery A,

72.

Siloam Springs: 2nd Battalion, 142nd Field Artillery,

Battery B, 73.

Ozark: 2nd Battalion, 142nd Field Artillery, Battery C, 73.

West Memphis: 216th Military Police Company, 124.

Little Rock: 149th Medical Company, 2.

Little Rock: 343rd Mobile Public Affairs Detachment, 7.

Ft. Smith: 935th Support Battalion, 99.

N. Little Rock: 935th Support Battalion, 32.

Charleston: 296th Medical Company, 117.

Marked Tree: 1123rd Transportation Company, 167.

N. Little Rock: 25th Support Detachment, 49.

N. Little Rock: 114th Aviation Air Traffic Control

Battalion, 64.

N. Little Rock: 223rd Regiment (Regional Training

Institute, 2.

Army Reserve (794 Arkansans):

Fayetteville: 362nd Psychological Operations Company, 67.

Little Rock: 431st Civil Affairs Battalion, 140.

Little Rock: 460th Chemical Brigade, 1.

Pine Bluff: 92nd Chemical Battalion, 1.

Charleston: 38th Ordnance Group, 56.

Little Rock: 468th Chemical Battalion, 45.

N. Little Rock: 489th Engineer Battalion, 452.

Little Rock: 90th Reserve Support Command, 22.

Little Rock: 112th Chaplain Detachment, 2.

Little Rock: U.S. Army Engineering Facility Group, 8.

Air National Guard (145 Arkansans):

Little Rock: 189th Airlift Wing, 99.

Fort Smith: 188th Airlift Wing, 46.

Naval Reserves (7 Arkansans):

Little Rock: Naval Support Activity Bahrain, Detachment C,

7.

Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Medicare Patient Access to Physical Therapists Act of 2003, which allows Medicare beneficiaries direct access to qualified physical therapists without a physician referral, as allowed by State law. I am proud to be joined in this effort today by my friends Senators Specter, Landrieu, and Ensign.

Currently, 35 States, including my home State of Arkansas, allow for direct access to physical therapists without the added cost of a physician referral. Direct access is an important change that physical therapists and their patients are seeking to the Medicare program. The National Rural Health Association, Easter Seals, and the Brain Injury Association of America join with us today in expressing their support for this important legislation.

Currently, seniors and disabled Medicare beneficiaries must first visit a physician before being allowed to visit a physical therapist. This burdensome requirement in Medicare is simply no longer necessary and limits access to timely and medically necessary physical therapists' services. Providing Medicare beneficiaries with direct access to physical therapists should be a critical component of any Medicare reform.

Congress must consistently balance patient safety, accessibility of services from qualified providers, and costs to the Medicare program when evaluating services. State boards that regulate physical therapy confirm that patient safety is not compromised by the elimination of the referral requirement because malpractice incidents and costs are not markedly higher in States that allow direct access.

Second, direct access to physical therapists would allow for improved access to quality health care services, particularly in rural and urban underserved communities. It is a burden for elderly and disabled patients with chronic conditions to drive back and forth to a physician's office simply to obtain another referral for physical therapy. This not only disrupts patient access to timely therapy treatment but creates a needless administrative expense for the Medicare program.

Finally, a study of BlueCross/BlueShield insurance claims in Maryland indicates that services are not over-utilized when a patient has direct access to physical therapists. In fact, the study indicates significantly lower costs when care is initiated without a physician referral. With this in mind, a policy that improves access to physical

therapists is a positive reform for the Medicare program and its beneficiaries.

The Medicare program should not impose arbitrary administrative barriers to patients who need physical therapy services, especially when States have an entirely different standard for access. I encourage my colleagues to support this Medicare modernization plan to ensure the best access to physical therapy for America's most vulnerable population--senior and disabled patients.

Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to Victor Baird, who is retiring from his position as acting staff director and chief counsel to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics after more than 15 years of service.

For the last 2 years, I have had the privilege to serve on the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Ethics, an assignment that has provided me valuable insights into the workings and the ethical guidelines of this body. When I joined the committee, I was a relatively junior member, having served only 2 years in the Senate. I consider myself extremely fortunate that during this time, I have been able to draw on the wisdom and expertise of Victor Baird.

Following a distinguished legal career in Georgia, Victor came to Washington in 1987 to serve as counsel to the Ethics Committee. Over the ensuing 15 years, Victor has brought to the committee a sense of nonpartisan balance, careful legal judgment, historical perspective, and good humor--a collection of qualities that have served the committee well during some challenging times. His advice to committee members and his leadership of the committee staff have been invaluable during the last 15 years, and we owe him a debt of gratitude for his service.

I should note that, although the committee is losing a valuable asset in Victor Baird, we are fortunate in the choice of his successor--Rob Walker. Mr. Walker has served the past 4 years as chief counsel and staff director of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Standards of Official Conduct. But prior to that, he served as counsel to the Senate Ethics Committee, where he worked closely with Victor Baird. The Senate Ethics Committee is fortunate to have Rob back. I look forward to working with him, as I am sure that he will continue the tradition of fairness and excellence that his predecessor has established.

So as we say goodbye to Victor Baird, let's also thank him for his steady and dependable service in the committee for these last 15 years, and let's wish him well in his ventures in the years to come.

Mr. President, I certainly thank my colleague from West Virginia for his courtesy and kindness in letting me go forward. I appreciate it.

Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my frustration with the nomination of Miguel Estrada to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. I have never before opposed a judicial nominee, but after much prayer and reflection I cannot support this nominee until he is able and willing to cooperate with the Senate in its Constitutional responsibility to advise and consent. I believe all executive and judicial nominations that come before the U.S. Senate are entitled to courtesy and respect. I also believe the U.S. Senate's role of advise and consent is an important check and balance that our forefathers instituted, and it is an obligation that I do not take lightly. I know our forefathers put it there for a good reason. Each nominee is entitled to a thorough and fair hearing, and I have fully evaluated each of President Bush's nominees as the Constitution

mandates. In every case before us, I have supported President Bush's nominees. Yet I can not in good conscience support this nominee at this time based on the lack of information that has been made available and the manner in which this nomination has been presented. Is it too much to ask of a person who is being offered a lifetime position to simply answer a few questions?

As a nominee seeking Senate confirmation, Mr. Estrada has the burden of proof to demonstrate his fitness for the high office he seeks. During the confirmation process, a nominee can meet this burden in many ways depending in part on the background and experience of an individual at the time of appointment. Another consideration is the level of scrutiny warranted for a life-time appointment to an important judgeship. Finally, one critical element I look for in all nominees is a willingness to cooperate with the Senate and show deference and respect for the process we engage in here in the Senate.

As many of my colleagues have already established, Mr. Estrada comes to the Senate with a very limited written record upon which to make an informed judgment. To make our job even more difficult, the administration has refused to release relevant information that would shed much needed light on this nominee's judicial philosophy and reasoning. Moreover, Mr. Estrada seemed determined to be evasive and unresponsive to questions put to him during his confirmation hearing.

After weighing these factors, reviewing the committee record, meeting personally with Mr. Estrada, and considering the views of hundreds of constituents and interested organizations, I am not satisfied that Mr. Estrada has met the burden required for confirmation to such an important position.

Even though Mr. Estrada is reluctant or unwilling to say so, I assume Mr. Estrada has a conservative ideology and that he and I would disagree on many issues. But after voting for every judicial nominee to come before the Senate since I took office, I can say with credibility that Mr. Estrada's ideology doesn't prevent me from supporting his nomination. A nominee's particular views or political beliefs don't bother me, so long as I am confident that nominee can separate his personal beliefs and opinions from his duty as a Federal judge to follow established precedent and interpret the law and Constitution fairly and without political bias.

What concerns me a good deal, however, is the unwillingness of the administration and Mr. Estrada to respond directly to reasonable requests for legitimate information. How hard is it to answer questions about Supreme Court cases that have been on the books for years? Why is the administration so unwilling to allow U.S. Senators to review written material that would help us discharge our duty under the Constitution?

I believe having judges from different backgrounds is important, and I salute President Bush for nominating an Hispanic to serve on this court. I fully support efforts to diversity the Federal judiciary so that it is more representative of our society. But I cannot support Mr. Estrada simply because he is Hispanic.

Charges of racial insensitivity have no place in this debate. This Senate has already confirmed unanimously seven of President Bush's Hispanic judicial nominees.

Like all nominees that come before the Senate, Mr. Estrada must answer questions put before him. I want to make clear that the questions Democrats asked of Mr. Estrada are no different than the questions Republicans have asked of nominees. In fact, when the current Attorney General served on the Senate Judiciary Committee, he asked a judicial nominee the same question that Mr. Estrada refused to answer. The question was: ``Which judge has served as a model for the way you would conduct yourself as a judge and why?'' Mr. Estrada was asked and refused to answer a similar question.

When I let my boys off at school this morning--they are 6 years old and in the first grade--they were having problems with a buddy at school, in their class. They were saying: What do we do with this, Mom? How do we handle it?

Do you know what I said to them? I said: Work with him. Figure it out. Work with him.

That is simple, and it is simply what Democrats have told Mr. Estrada: Work with us. We are trying to do our job, to satisfy our constitutional responsibility, in good conscience, to meet the job we are sent here to do by the constituents who believe in us. If that means reviewing oral arguments and briefs of a few cases so that Mr. Estrada can state an opinion on at least one case decided by the Supreme Court in the last 40 years, why not do it? No one disagrees that Mr. Estrada has a distinguished academic and professional background. He is a very nice man. I met with him. My responsibility is not just to put nice people into judgeships.

He graduated magna cum laude from Columbia and magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, served as editor for Harvard Law Review, and clerked for a Supreme Court Justice. It should not take him more than an afternoon, or less, to do a little research so that he could answer the questions that members of the Judiciary Committee have put before him.

I call on the administration to let Mr. Estrada answer the questions the Senate has put before him, in good faith, so that the Senate can vote on Mr. Estrada. Is it really too much to ask, to simply say we need more information to make an important judgment on a very important, lifetime nomination? Please, give us the ability to execute our responsibilities under the Constitution. Is it too much to ask of one man, who is before us, who has the burden of proof, to show us his capabilities? Is it too much to ask, to simply say let's spend a couple of more hours, answer a few questions, and move forward? Because this Nation has a great deal to deal with. We have many issues on our plates and many things we need to address immediately. I simply say to my colleagues, is it too much to ask, to simply answer a few questions?

Mr. President, I especially thank my colleague from West Virginia for his yielding to me and allowing me to move forward.

Madam President, today I am pleased to introduce the Geriatric Care Act of 2003, a bill to increase the number of geriatricians in our country through training incentives and Medicare reimbursement for geriatric care. I am proud to be joined in this effort today by Senators Reid, Snowe, Breaux, Graham, Bingaman, Landrieu, Murray, Mikulski, Sarbanes, Reed, Kennedy, and Collins.

Our country teeters on the brink of revolutionary demographic change as baby boomers begin to retire and Medicare begins to care for them.

As a member of the Finance Committee and the Special Committee on Aging, I have a special interest in preparing health care providers and Medicare for the inevitable ``aging of America.'' By improving access to geriatric care, the Geriatric Care Act of 2003 takes an important first step in modernizing Medicare for the 21st century.

By the year 2030, 70 million Americans will be 65 and older. The elderly will soon represent one-fifth of the United States population, the largest proportion of older persons in our Nation's history. Our Nation's health care system will face an unprecedented strain as our population grows older. Our Nation is simply ill-prepared for what lies ahead.

Demand for quality care will increase, and we will need physicians who understand the complex health problems that aging inevitably brings. As seniors live longer, they face much greater risks of disease and disability. Conditions such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and Alzheimer's disease occur more frequently as people age.

The complex problems associated with aging require a supply of physicians with special training in geriatrics. Geriatricians are physicians who are first board certified in family practice or internal medicine and then complete additional training in geriatrics.

Geriatric medicine provides the most comprehensive health care for our most vulnerable seniors. Geriatrics promotes wellness and preventive care, helping to improve patients' overall quality of life by allowing them greater independence and preventing unnecessary and costly trips to the hospital or other institutions.

Geriatricians also have a heightened awareness of the effects of prescription drugs. Given our seniors' growing dependence on prescriptions, it is increasingly important that physicians know how, when, and in what dosages to prescribe medicines for seniors. That's because frequently, older patients respond to medications in different ways than younger patients.

In fact, 35 percent of Americans 65 years and older experience adverse drug reactions each year. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, medication problems may be involved in as many as 17 percent of all hospitalizations of seniors annually.

Care management provided by a geriatrician will not only provide better health care for our seniors, but will also save costs to Medicare in the long term by eliminating more costly medical care in hospitals and nursing homes.

Quite clearly, geriatrics is a vital thread in the fabric of our health care system, especially in light of our looming demographic changes.

Yet today, there are fewer than 9,000 certified geriatricians in the United States. Of the approximately 98,000 medical residency and fellowship positions supported by Medicare in 1998, only 324 were in geriatric medicine and geriatric psychiatry. Only three medical schools in the country, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, UAMS, being one of them, has a Department of Geriatrics. This is incredible considering that all 125 medical schools in our country have departments of pediatrics.

As if that weren't alarming enough, the number of geriatricians is expected to decline dramatically in the next several years. In fact, most of these doctors will retire just as the Baby Boomer generation becomes eligible for Medicare. We must reverse this trend and provide incentives to increase the number of geriatricians in our country.

Unfortunately, there are barriers preventing physicians from entering geriatrics. These include insufficient Medicare reimbursements for the provision of geriatric care, inadequate training dollars, and too few positions for geriatricians.

Many practicing geriatricians find it increasingly difficult to focus their practice exclusively on older patients because of insufficient Medicare reimbursement. Unlike most other medical specialties, geriatricians depend almost entirely on Medicare revenues. A recent MedPAC report identified low Medicare reimbursement levels as a major stumbling block to recruiting new geriatricians.

Currently, the reimbursement rate for geriatricians is the same as it is for regular physicians. But the services geriatricians provide are fundamentally different.

Physicians who assess younger patients simply don't have to invest the same time that geriatricians must invest assessing the complex needs of elderly patients. Moreover, chronic illness and multiple medications make medical decision-making more complex and time consuming. Additionally, planning for health care needs becomes more complicated as geriatricians seek to include both patients and caregivers in the process.

We must modernize the Medicare fee schedule to acknowledge the importance of geriatric assessment and care coordination in providing health care for seniors. Geriatric practices cannot flourish and these trends will not improve until we adjust the system to reflect the realities of senior health care.

The Geriatric Care Act I am introducing today addresses these shortfalls. This bill provides Medicare coverage for the twin foundations of geriatric practice--geriatric assessment and care coordination.

The bill authorizes Medicare to cover these essential services for seniors, thereby allowing geriatricians to manage medications effectively, to work with other health care providers as a team, and to provide necessary support for caregivers.

The Geriatric Care Act also will remove the disincentive caused by the Graduate Medical Education cap established by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. As a result of this cap, many hospitals have eliminated or reduced their geriatric training programs.

The Geriatric Care Act corrects this problem by allowing for additional geriatric training slots in hospitals. By allowing hospitals to exceed the cap placed on their training slots, this bill will help increase the number of residents in geriatric training programs.

Finally, the Geriatric Care Act contains a new provision that ensures Graduate Medical Education payments for the second year of geriatric fellowship training. A one-year fellowship may be adequate for training clinical geriatricans but a two-year fellowship is essential for training academic geriatricans who will teach geriatrics to primary care and specialty physicians-in-training. Academic geriatricians are critical in preparing the next generation of doctors to care for our growing elderly population.

My home State of Arkansas ranks sixth in the Nation in percentage of population 65 years and older. In a decade, we will rank third. In many ways, our population in Arkansas is a snapshot of what the rest of the United States will look like in the near future.

We are blessed in Arkansas to have the Donald W. Reynolds Department of Geriatrics and the Center on Aging at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. It is my hope that the Geriatric Care Act will make it easier for our medical school and others across the country to train more physicians in geriatrics.

As our parents, grandparents, friends, and loved ones cope with the challenges that aging brings, we must ensure that physicians skilled in caring for their special needs are there to help them. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this effort to modernize Medicare to support crucial geriatric services for our Nation's seniors.

I ask unanimous consent that following my statement there be a printed list of organizations that support the Geriatric Care Act of 2003.

Madam President, today I am pleased to introduce the Geriatric Care Act of 2003, a bill to increase the number of geriatricians in our country through training incentives and Medicare reimbursement for geriatric care. I am proud to be joined in this effort today by Senators Reid, Snowe, Breaux, Graham, Bingaman, Landrieu, Murray, Mikulski, Sarbanes, Reed, Kennedy, and Collins.

Our country teeters on the brink of revolutionary demographic change as baby boomers begin to retire and Medicare begins to care for them.

As a member of the Finance Committee and the Special Committee on Aging, I have a special interest in preparing health care providers and Medicare for the inevitable ``aging of America.'' By improving access to geriatric care, the Geriatric Care Act of 2003 takes an important first step in modernizing Medicare for the 21st century.

By the year 2030, 70 million Americans will be 65 and older. The elderly will soon represent one-fifth of the United States population, the largest proportion of older persons in our Nation's history. Our Nation's health care system will face an unprecedented strain as our population grows older. Our Nation is simply ill-prepared for what lies ahead.

Demand for quality care will increase, and we will need physicians who understand the complex health problems that aging inevitably brings. As seniors live longer, they face much greater risks of disease and disability. Conditions such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes and Alzheimer's disease occur more frequently as people age.

The complex problems associated with aging require a supply of physicians with special training in geriatrics. Geriatricians are physicians who are first board certified in family practice or internal medicine and then complete additional training in geriatrics.

Geriatric medicine provides the most comprehensive health care for our most vulnerable seniors. Geriatrics promotes wellness and preventive care, helping to improve patients' overall quality of life by allowing them greater independence and preventing unnecessary and costly trips to the hospital or other institutions.

Geriatricians also have a heightened awareness of the effects of prescription drugs. Given our seniors' growing dependence on prescriptions, it is increasingly important that physicians know how, when, and in what dosages to prescribe medicines for seniors. That's because frequently, older patients respond to medications in different ways than younger patients.

In fact, 35 percent of Americans 65 years and older experience adverse drug reactions each year. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, medication problems may be involved in as many as 17 percent of all hospitalizations of seniors annually.

Care management provided by a geriatrician will not only provide better health care for our seniors, but will also save costs to Medicare in the long term by eliminating more costly medical care in hospitals and nursing homes.

Quite clearly, geriatrics is a vital thread in the fabric of our health care system, especially in light of our looming demographic changes.

Yet today, there are fewer than 9,000 certified geriatricians in the United States. Of the approximately 98,000 medical residency and fellowship positions supported by Medicare in 1998, only 324 were in geriatric medicine and geriatric psychiatry. Only three medical schools in the country, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, UAMS, being one of them, has a Department of Geriatrics. This is incredible considering that all 125 medical schools in our country have departments of pediatrics.

As if that weren't alarming enough, the number of geriatricians is expected to decline dramatically in the next several years. In fact, most of these doctors will retire just as the Baby Boomer generation becomes eligible for Medicare. We must reverse this trend and provide incentives to increase the number of geriatricians in our country.

Unfortunately, there are barriers preventing physicians from entering geriatrics. These include insufficient Medicare reimbursements for the provision of geriatric care, inadequate training dollars, and too few positions for geriatricians.

Many practicing geriatricians find it increasingly difficult to focus their practice exclusively on older patients because of insufficient Medicare reimbursement. Unlike most other medical specialties, geriatricians depend almost entirely on Medicare revenues. A recent MedPAC report identified low Medicare reimbursement levels as a major stumbling block to recruiting new geriatricians.

Currently, the reimbursement rate for geriatricians is the same as it is for regular physicians. But the services geriatricians provide are fundamentally different.

Physicians who assess younger patients simply don't have to invest the same time that geriatricians must invest assessing the complex needs of elderly patients. Moreover, chronic illness and multiple medications make medical decision-making more complex and time consuming. Additionally, planning for health care needs becomes more complicated as geriatricians seek to include both patients and caregivers in the process.

We must modernize the Medicare fee schedule to acknowledge the importance of geriatric assessment and care coordination in providing health care for seniors. Geriatric practices cannot flourish and these trends will not improve until we adjust the system to reflect the realities of senior health care.

The Geriatric Care Act I am introducing today addresses these shortfalls. This bill provides Medicare coverage for the twin foundations of geriatric practice--geriatric assessment and care coordination.

The bill authorizes Medicare to cover these essential services for seniors, thereby allowing geriatricians to manage medications effectively, to work with other health care providers as a team, and to provide necessary support for caregivers.

The Geriatric Care Act also will remove the disincentive caused by the Graduate Medical Education cap established by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. As a result of this cap, many hospitals have eliminated or reduced their geriatric training programs.

The Geriatric Care Act corrects this problem by allowing for additional geriatric training slots in hospitals. By allowing hospitals to exceed the cap placed on their training slots, this bill will help increase the number of residents in geriatric training programs.

Finally, the Geriatric Care Act contains a new provision that ensures Graduate Medical Education payments for the second year of geriatric fellowship training. A one-year fellowship may be adequate for training clinical geriatricans but a two-year fellowship is essential for training academic geriatricans who will teach geriatrics to primary care and specialty physicians-in-training. Academic geriatricians are critical in preparing the next generation of doctors to care for our growing elderly population.

My home State of Arkansas ranks sixth in the Nation in percentage of population 65 years and older. In a decade, we will rank third. In many ways, our population in Arkansas is a snapshot of what the rest of the United States will look like in the near future.

We are blessed in Arkansas to have the Donald W. Reynolds Department of Geriatrics and the Center on Aging at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences. It is my hope that the Geriatric Care Act will make it easier for our medical school and others across the country to train more physicians in geriatrics.

As our parents, grandparents, friends, and loved ones cope with the challenges that aging brings, we must ensure that physicians skilled in caring for their special needs are there to help them. I ask my colleagues to join me in support of this effort to modernize Medicare to support crucial geriatric services for our Nation's seniors.

I ask unanimous consent that following my statement there be a printed list of organizations that support the Geriatric Care Act of 2003.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Pete Domenici today in introducing the ``Medicare Access Equity Act of 2003.''

This important legislation will significantly help rural physicians in Arkansas and across the country keep their doors open to Medicare beneficiaries. By correcting a disparity in the Medicare physician fee schedule, Medicare will pay rural physicians more fairly for their individual effort in treating Medicare patients.

In my home State of Arkansas, 60 percent of seniors live in rural areas. Consequently, Medicare patients make up a large percentage of a rural physician's practice.

It is simply unfair that current Federal policy doesn't value physician work in all areas, urban and rural, in the same way. Because the component of the fee schedule that relates to physician work is multiplied by a geographic indicator adjusting for variants in cost, Medicare payment policy devalues the amount of time and skill that rural physicians spend in providing medical services.

I believe that work is work, regardless of where it is performed. It takes the same amount of time and skill for a physician in Pea Ridge, AR to treat a wound or diagnose a patient as a physician in Los Angeles, CA. It is time to correct this inequity.

The Medicare Access Equity Act does this by revising the geographic practice cost indices GPCI, to establish a minimum index of 1 for the ``physician work'' component. The bill applies the current formula to determine physician work GPCIs, but if a GPCI is calculated to be less than 1, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will increase it to 1.

This is critical to my home State of Arkansas, where the physician work GPCI is currently 0.953, the sixth lowest GPCI in the country. Increasing Arkansas' work GPCI to 1 will automatically pump more money to rural physicians in Arkansas, where many may begin to close their doors due to the rising costs of providing health care.

It is my hope that Senator Domenici and I, with help from the Senate Rural Health Caucus, can pass this important legislation as part of any Medicare reform we consider this year. Fair reimbursement is key to ensuring that rural Americans retain the quality health care they receive from their doctors.

Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Pete Domenici today in introducing the ``Medicare Access Equity Act of 2003.''

This important legislation will significantly help rural physicians in Arkansas and across the country keep their doors open to Medicare beneficiaries. By correcting a disparity in the Medicare physician fee schedule, Medicare will pay rural physicians more fairly for their individual effort in treating Medicare patients.

In my home State of Arkansas, 60 percent of seniors live in rural areas. Consequently, Medicare patients make up a large percentage of a rural physician's practice.

It is simply unfair that current Federal policy doesn't value physician work in all areas, urban and rural, in the same way. Because the component of the fee schedule that relates to physician work is multiplied by a geographic indicator adjusting for variants in cost, Medicare payment policy devalues the amount of time and skill that rural physicians spend in providing medical services.

I believe that work is work, regardless of where it is performed. It takes the same amount of time and skill for a physician in Pea Ridge, AR to treat a wound or diagnose a patient as a physician in Los Angeles, CA. It is time to correct this inequity.

The Medicare Access Equity Act does this by revising the geographic practice cost indices GPCI, to establish a minimum index of 1 for the ``physician work'' component. The bill applies the current formula to determine physician work GPCIs, but if a GPCI is calculated to be less than 1, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will increase it to 1.

This is critical to my home State of Arkansas, where the physician work GPCI is currently 0.953, the sixth lowest GPCI in the country. Increasing Arkansas' work GPCI to 1 will automatically pump more money to rural physicians in Arkansas, where many may begin to close their doors due to the rising costs of providing health care.

It is my hope that Senator Domenici and I, with help from the Senate Rural Health Caucus, can pass this important legislation as part of any Medicare reform we consider this year. Fair reimbursement is key to ensuring that rural Americans retain the quality health care they receive from their doctors.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my package of alternative energy and energy efficiency bills. These bills all work in concert toward a single goal--promoting the use of cleaner, renewable energy for this nation.

For several decades, the U.S. has relied on foreign sources of energy supply. Worldwide demand for energy has continued to increase, while our domestic resource base has decreased, leaving the country vulnerable in the event of foreign supply disruptions. This year, the U.S. will import 60 percent of its crude oil needs this year. The events of September 11th have focused attention on the need to develop a new energy policy that focuses on creating new domestic sources. Our Nation needs to explore and develop all possible domestic options as resources for our energy supply. To reduce our dependence on foreign imports, it is imperative that policy makers create incentives to promote technologies that can produce quality alternative products. Our national security demands that the government undertake programs which assure the implementation of real alternative fuel technologies.

It is in the best security interests of our Nation to reduce our reliance on foreign energy suppliers. We can no longer afford to be subject to the whims and manipulations of foreign cartels like OPEC. Added to these threats posed by OPEC and the instability of the Middle East are the even more sinister possibilities that we face in other parts of the world. Developments in many regions of the world where much of today's energy supplies are obtained--West Africa, the Caspian Sea, Indonesia, Venezuela, and so forth--clearly serve notice that our Nation cannot continue to depend on these areas for our future energy needs. These events make it more pressing than ever that we proceed forward with the development of our own domestic alternative energy resources.

In the last Congress, both the House and the Senate passed comprehensive energy bills that would have brought us closer to these goals. In the Senate bill, we were able to strike a delicate balance between using our resources for energy and preserving our environment for future generations. I was pleased with the Senate version of the Energy Policy Act of 2002, and was disappointed that conferees were unable to iron out differences with the House of Representatives before adjournment. We must make energy independence a national priority because it is now essential to our homeland security.

Looking ahead, I will continue my work to build a cohesive national energy policy that ultimately reduces our dependence on foreign oil. To accomplish this goal, we must provide access to more resources, transmit these resources to the consumer, and encourage industrial and individual consumers to use more renewable energy sources. These important steps will lead to greater reliability and lower energy costs for consumers.

We should all work again in the 108th Congress to adopt a comprehensive energy plan that sets America on the road to energy independence and assures consumers of a reliable and affordable energy supply.

The legislation I am introducing today will encourage production of biodiesel and its use in this country; to promote the manufacture of energy efficient home appliances; to encourage the use of fuels produced from animal and agricultural wastes; to encourage the use of our waste sources such as landfill gas and municipal solid waste to produce energy; and to spur the investment in delivering fuels to rural America. These incentives for production and use of clean and renewable fuels can help bridge the investment cost gap between production of petroleum and renewable energy.

Each of these bills were either included or debated in the Senate during last year's Senate consideration and passage of the energy bill. I look forward to their inclusion in the debate and inclusion in any energy bill to be passed by the Senate during the 108th Congress.

The first bill I am introducing today is the Biodiesel Promotion Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators Grassley, Hagel, Dayton, Harkin, Durbin, Coleman, and Johnson. This legislation will provide tax incentives for the production of biodiesel from agricultural oils, recycled oils, and animal fats and will ensure that biodiesel becomes a central component of this nation's automobile fuel market.

This legislation is identical to language authored by myself and Senator Grassley included in the last Congress's Energy Bill. It is intended to be a starting point for our debate and discussion as we draft an energy bill for consideration in this Congress.

This legislation will provide a partial exemption from the diesel excise tax for diesel blended with biodiesel. Specifically, the bill provides a one-cent reduction for every percent of biodiesel from virgin agricultural oils blended

with diesel up to 20 percent. The legislation will also provide a half- cent reduction for every percent of biodiesel from recycled agricultural oils or animal fats.

Also importantly, in the year that we are to reauthorize the Transportation Enhancement Act of 1996, the bill provides for reimbursing the Highway Trust Fund from the USDA Commodity Credit Corporation, CCC. This procedure will protect the Trust Fund from lost revenues due to the biodiesel incentive while providing a much-needed boost to our nation's biodiesel industry. The cost to the CCC would be offset at least initially by the savings under the marketing loan program.

Biodiesel, which can be made from just about any agricultural oil including oils from soybeans, cottonseed, or rice, is completely renewable, contains no petroleum, and can be easily blended with petroleum diesel. A biodiesel-diesel blend typically contains up to 20 percent renewable content. It can be added directly into the gas tank of a compression-ignition, diesel engine vehicle with no major modifications. Biodiesel is completely biodegradable and non-toxic, contains no sulfur, and it is the first and only alternative fuel to meet EPA's Tier I and II health effects testing standards. Biodiesel also stands ready to help us reach the EPA's new rule to reduce the sulfur content of highway diesel fuel by over 95 percent.

Even after years of research and market development, biodiesel is not yet cost-competitive with petroleum diesel. In order to be so, market support and tax incentives are needed. I believe the provisions provided in this bill will help in leveling the field for biodiesel blends and help jumpstart this new industry.

The time is right for this investment. It is right for our rural economy, for our environment, and for our national energy security and I encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting the Biodiesel Promotion Act of 2003.

The second component of my package is the EPACT Alternative Fuel Flexibility Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Bond and Talent in introducing this legislation.

The purpose of this legislation is to place biodiesel fuel on equal footing with every other alternative motor fuel used in this nation.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992, EPACT, set a national objective to shift the focus of national energy demand away from imported oil toward renewable and domestically produced energy sources. When EPACT was passed in 1992, it recognized ethanol, natural gas, propane, electricity, and methanol as alternative fuels. The original list of alternative fuels did not include biodiesel because the technology had not been fully developed.

EPACT set a goal to replace 10 percent of petroleum-based fuels by 2000 and 30 percent by the year 2010. However, a GAO report issued in July of 2001 noted that ``limited progress has been made in increasing the numbers of alternative fuel vehicles, AFV, in the national vehicle fleet and the use of alternative fuels'' as compared to conventional vehicles and fuels.

We did not meet the original EPACT goals of replacing 10 percent of petroleum-based fuels by 2000. Today we are not on track to meet the goal of 30 percent by the year 2010. In fact, we haven't even come close, and that's partly a result of not allowing all alternative fuels to be used to meet the EPACT alternative fuel mandates.

This legislation will significantly increase the use of alternative fuels by allowing EPACT covered fleets to meet up to 100 percent of the EPACT purchase requirements through the use of biodiesel. Currently, covered fleets can only meet up to 50 percent of purchase requirements with biodiesel.

By offering an additional option for the use of alternative fuels, we will widen the possibilities for these fuels to be made more widely available. Fleets will continue to have the option to choose the complying vehicles and fuels that best meet their needs. This legislation is not expected to affect fleets that are currently using ethanol or natural gas. But this legislation does provide a further option for alternative fuel vehicles. Furthermore, it does not directly displace natural gas or ethanol sales, since biodiesel is used in medium- and heavy-duty trucks rather than light-duty vehicles.

By allowing fleets to meet 100 percent of their AFV requirement by using biodiesel, we'll take a positive step toward moving this country away from dependence on petroleum-based motor fuels and toward alternative motor fuels. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

The third bill I introduce today as part of my energy independence package is the Animal and Agricultural Waste Renewable Energy Production Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Hagel, Bond, and Kerry in introducing this legislation.

This legislation would provide a credit under Section 29 of the tax code for the production of fuels from animal and agricultural wastes.

Thanks to new technological developments, we can now produce significant quantities of alternative fuels from agricultural and animal wastes in an environmentally friendly manner. Production incentives are needed to assure implementation and commercialization of this new generation of technology.

Section 29 was originally enacted to provide an incentive to produce alternative and hard-to-reach fuels that could compete with fossil fuels and hopefully reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil. As originally enacted, a number of ``non-conventional fuels'' were eligible for the credit, including the following: oil from shale; oil from tar sands; natural gas from geo-pressured brine, coal seams, Devonian shale, or tight sands; liquid, gaseous or solid synthetic fuel from coal, including coke and coke by-products; gas from biomass, including wood; steam from solid agricultural by-products; and processed solid wood fuels.

Other biomass by-products, such as agricultural and animal oils and solids, also should qualify the same as liquid or gaseous synthetic fuels derived from coal.

New technological advances have been developed which will convert these biomass wastes efficiently to alternative fuels. The most readily available of these wastes are agricultural and animal wastes, municipal wastes, plastics, used tires, and forest product wastes. This production incentive opportunity would provide significant new annual quantities of alternative fuel to replace foreign imported oil and should be considered a government investment in the nation's future.

If these incentives are implemented, large marketable quantities of quality alternative fuel products can be produced as a replacement for foreign imported oil. These processes can achieve the desired results in an environmentally positive way that essentially converts all wastes to products and provides an answer for waste disposal problems. To achieve these results, financial incentives need be provided from the government. Section 29 should be extended to include alternative fuels produced from all biomass wastes and I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation.

The fourth bill I am introducing today is the Capturing Landfill Gas for Energy Act of 2003. This legislation will provide a credit under either Section 29 or Section 45 of the tax code for the production of energy from landfill gas, LFG. It is designed to encourage additional collection and productive use of methane gas generated by garbage decomposing in America's landfills. LFG is a renewable fuel that can be used directly as an energy source for heating, as a clean burning vehicle fuel, as a hydrogen source for fuel cells. Furthermore, it can power generators to produce electricity.

Congress recognized the importance of LFG for energy diversity and national security by providing such a credit in 1980 and extending it for nearly two decades. With today's critical energy needs and emphasis on distributed generation, this incentive makes more sense than ever. Most of the 360 LFG projects that currently are operating were made economically feasible by the ``non-conventional-source fuel'' production tax credit under Section 29 of the tax code.

But since June 30, 1998, that credit to encourage construction of new LFG projects has been unavailable, and few have been constructed since that date. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 600- 700 more LFG projects could be constructed nationwide if there were sufficient economic incentives in place to foster

their development. With such incentives, it is likely that about 55 new projects would be brought on line each year. Just one medium-sized project could provide three megawatts of electrical power capacity-- enough to meet the electricity needs of 3,000 homes each year.

In addition to the value of LFG as an important contribution to our overall energy strategy, there are compelling environmental reasons to encourage these projects. Uncontrolled landfill gas can create fire hazards and odors and can impair air quality. The methane in landfill gas is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Even the large landfills that are required under the Clean Air Act to collect their gas and control non-methane organic compounds often find it more economic to simply flare or otherwise waste the gas rather than use the methane. Some smaller landfills are not required to collect the gas, and may continue to emit it for decades under the Clean Air Act. Thus, LFG projects not only reduce local and regional air pollution while yielding a renewable source of energy, they can also reduce the country's yearly emissions of greenhouse gases by a very substantial amount at a relatively small cost.

Unfortunately, the potential energy and environmental benefits of future LFG projects are substantial, but they will be lost without adequate LFG tax provisions to support project development. On average, the total capital cost of constructing an LFG-fueled electricity generating project is about $1 million per megawatt, and the annual operating and maintenance costs average another $150,000 per megawatt. The average capital cost of a new direct use fuel production and delivery project is about $2.5 million, with annual operation and maintenance costs of about $350,000.

My bill proposes sufficient, yet sensible, tax incentives to encourage these large investments, and I urge my colleagues to join me and support LFG tax credits.

Today I am also pleased to be joined by Senator Akaka in introducing the fifth component of my energy package--the Waste to Energy Utilization Act of 2003. This legislation will provide a credit under Section 45 of the tax code for new waste-to-energy facilities or new generating units at existing facilities. Such a tax credit encourages clean renewable electricity and promotes energy diversity, while helping cities meet the challenge of trash disposal.

Nearly 2000 communities nationwide rely on waste-to-energy facilities to safely dispose of trash and generate clean, renewable energy that meets the power need of more than two and a half million homes. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has repeatedly urged Congress to include provisions that promote waste-to-energy in tax legislation and they are joined by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers.

Arkansas stands with other environmentally conscious States in understanding that waste-to-energy technology saves valuable land and significantly reduces the amount of greenhouse gases that would have been released into our atmosphere without its operation. The volume of waste is reduced by greater than 90 percent in a waste-to-energy facility, and EPA has confirmed that more than 33 million tons of greenhouse gases are avoided annually by the combustion of municipal solid waste. Municipal solid waste is a sustainable source of clean, renewable energy.

Local governments spent about $1 billion over the past five years on air pollution control equipment to comply with EPA's Maximum Achievable Control Technology, MACT, standards required under the Clean Air Act. These retrofits have made waste-to-energy one of the cleanest power generators in the country. In June, EPA announced that these facilities have shown ``outstanding performance'' resulting in ``dramatic decreases'' in emissions, resulting in reductions of mercury emissions of more than 95 percent from a decade ago. Communities with waste-to- energy facilities recycle 33 percent of their trash, on average, and historically have more successful recycling programs than cities without waste-to-energy plants.

We must sustain a level marketplace to achieve energy diversity and economic growth. I believe this Senate should pass tax legislation that includes production tax credits to spur energy generation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join us and support this legislation.

The sixth bill I introduce today is the Resource Efficient Appliance Incentives Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators Allard, Grassley, Harkin, Stabenow, Hagel, Levin, and DeWine.

This legislation will provide a tax credit for the production of super energy-efficient clothes washers and refrigerators if those appliances exceed new Federal energy efficiency standards. The tax credit would only be available for five years and would be capped for each manufacturer.

In 2001, the Department of Energy issued new energy efficiency standards for clothes washers. This agreement accompanies rules for higher efficiency refrigerators issued by the department two years ago. The new rules are significant because clothes washers, clothes dryers, and refrigerators account for approximately 15 percent of all household energy consumed in the U.S. annually. The tax incentives contained in this legislation are constructed to encourage manufacturers not only to exceed these new efficiency requirements, but to exceed them by up to 35 percent.

Tax incentives are essential to accelerate the production and market penetration of leading-edge appliance technologies that create significant environmental benefits. The need for super energy-efficient appliances is greater this year than at any time in the past 20 years. Over the life of the appliances, over 200 trillion BTUs of energy will be saved. This is the equivalent of taking 2.3 million cars off the road or making available for other uses the energy of six coal-fired power plants for a year.

In addition, the clothes washers will reduce the amount of water necessary to wash clothes by 870 billion gallons, an amount equal to the needs of every household in a city the size of Phoenix, Arizona for two years. The water savings attributable to these new technology machines is not based on some computer generated model but an actual case study that gathered data in the small community of Bern, KS by the Dept. of Energy's esteemed Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1998.

The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers estimates these super energy-efficient appliances could save the average family $100 per year--or $1,400 per family over the lifetime of the appliance. This legislation will create the incentives necessary to increase the production and sale of these super energy-efficient appliances in the short term while passing along energy savings to the American consumer.

As a DOE analysis indicates, high efficiency washers and refrigerators are significantly more expensive to manufacture than those that simply meet existing federal standards. Further, market surveys of consumers indicate that they are generally not willing to pay more for high efficiency appliances, even when it can be demonstrated that high efficiency appliances will generate greater savings in utility costs over time. The tax credit will provide an incentive for manufacturers to develop a greater selection of super efficient models that will appeal to consumers at all price points. In addition, to assure increased sales of these appliances, manufacturers will be encouraged to redirect their marketing and advertising resources toward the high efficiency models. Enactment of this legislation will bring immediate, significant, and lasting environmental benefits to the nation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in supporting in this effort.

The final bill I am introducing today is the Gas Distribution Infrastructure Investment Act of 2003. This legislation will amend the Internal Revenue Code to modify the depreciation of natural gas pipelines, equipment, and infrastructure assets from 20 to 10 years.

America's demand for energy is expected to grow by 32 percent during the next 20 years. Consumer demand for natural gas will grow at almost twice that rate, due to its economic, environmental, and operational benefits. That level of natural gas use is almost 60

percent greater than the highest recorded level. To satisfy this projected demand, we must substantially expand our existing gas infrastructure. This is especially true with respect to the delivery sector. Higher capacity utilization of existing infrastructure will meet some of this increased demand, but the delivery sector still will require capital investments of at least $123 billion for infrastructure enhancement and additions.

Shrinking the lifetime over which an asset is depreciated does not change the amount of expense a company is allowed to claim over the asset's useful life, but simply shortens the expensing period for tax purposes. This shortened tax life generates higher cash flows in terms of reduced tax liability during the asset's early useful lifetime. Conversely, the cash flows are decreased, relative to the longer depreciation life, during the later part of the asset's useful life. The overall impact is zero on a gross basis.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Infrastructure development and expansion is crucial if America's homes are to continue to rely on clean-burning natural gas to heat their homes and fuel their appliances.

I ask unanimous consent that each of the seven bills I am introducing today be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce my package of alternative energy and energy efficiency bills. These bills all work in concert toward a single goal--promoting the use of cleaner, renewable energy for this nation.

For several decades, the U.S. has relied on foreign sources of energy supply. Worldwide demand for energy has continued to increase, while our domestic resource base has decreased, leaving the country vulnerable in the event of foreign supply disruptions. This year, the U.S. will import 60 percent of its crude oil needs this year. The events of September 11th have focused attention on the need to develop a new energy policy that focuses on creating new domestic sources. Our Nation needs to explore and develop all possible domestic options as resources for our energy supply. To reduce our dependence on foreign imports, it is imperative that policy makers create incentives to promote technologies that can produce quality alternative products. Our national security demands that the government undertake programs which assure the implementation of real alternative fuel technologies.

It is in the best security interests of our Nation to reduce our reliance on foreign energy suppliers. We can no longer afford to be subject to the whims and manipulations of foreign cartels like OPEC. Added to these threats posed by OPEC and the instability of the Middle East are the even more sinister possibilities that we face in other parts of the world. Developments in many regions of the world where much of today's energy supplies are obtained--West Africa, the Caspian Sea, Indonesia, Venezuela, and so forth--clearly serve notice that our Nation cannot continue to depend on these areas for our future energy needs. These events make it more pressing than ever that we proceed forward with the development of our own domestic alternative energy resources.

In the last Congress, both the House and the Senate passed comprehensive energy bills that would have brought us closer to these goals. In the Senate bill, we were able to strike a delicate balance between using our resources for energy and preserving our environment for future generations. I was pleased with the Senate version of the Energy Policy Act of 2002, and was disappointed that conferees were unable to iron out differences with the House of Representatives before adjournment. We must make energy independence a national priority because it is now essential to our homeland security.

Looking ahead, I will continue my work to build a cohesive national energy policy that ultimately reduces our dependence on foreign oil. To accomplish this goal, we must provide access to more resources, transmit these resources to the consumer, and encourage industrial and individual consumers to use more renewable energy sources. These important steps will lead to greater reliability and lower energy costs for consumers.

We should all work again in the 108th Congress to adopt a comprehensive energy plan that sets America on the road to energy independence and assures consumers of a reliable and affordable energy supply.

The legislation I am introducing today will encourage production of biodiesel and its use in this country; to promote the manufacture of energy efficient home appliances; to encourage the use of fuels produced from animal and agricultural wastes; to encourage the use of our waste sources such as landfill gas and municipal solid waste to produce energy; and to spur the investment in delivering fuels to rural America. These incentives for production and use of clean and renewable fuels can help bridge the investment cost gap between production of petroleum and renewable energy.

Each of these bills were either included or debated in the Senate during last year's Senate consideration and passage of the energy bill. I look forward to their inclusion in the debate and inclusion in any energy bill to be passed by the Senate during the 108th Congress.

The first bill I am introducing today is the Biodiesel Promotion Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators Grassley, Hagel, Dayton, Harkin, Durbin, Coleman, and Johnson. This legislation will provide tax incentives for the production of biodiesel from agricultural oils, recycled oils, and animal fats and will ensure that biodiesel becomes a central component of this nation's automobile fuel market.

This legislation is identical to language authored by myself and Senator Grassley included in the last Congress's Energy Bill. It is intended to be a starting point for our debate and discussion as we draft an energy bill for consideration in this Congress.

This legislation will provide a partial exemption from the diesel excise tax for diesel blended with biodiesel. Specifically, the bill provides a one-cent reduction for every percent of biodiesel from virgin agricultural oils blended

with diesel up to 20 percent. The legislation will also provide a half- cent reduction for every percent of biodiesel from recycled agricultural oils or animal fats.

Also importantly, in the year that we are to reauthorize the Transportation Enhancement Act of 1996, the bill provides for reimbursing the Highway Trust Fund from the USDA Commodity Credit Corporation, CCC. This procedure will protect the Trust Fund from lost revenues due to the biodiesel incentive while providing a much-needed boost to our nation's biodiesel industry. The cost to the CCC would be offset at least initially by the savings under the marketing loan program.

Biodiesel, which can be made from just about any agricultural oil including oils from soybeans, cottonseed, or rice, is completely renewable, contains no petroleum, and can be easily blended with petroleum diesel. A biodiesel-diesel blend typically contains up to 20 percent renewable content. It can be added directly into the gas tank of a compression-ignition, diesel engine vehicle with no major modifications. Biodiesel is completely biodegradable and non-toxic, contains no sulfur, and it is the first and only alternative fuel to meet EPA's Tier I and II health effects testing standards. Biodiesel also stands ready to help us reach the EPA's new rule to reduce the sulfur content of highway diesel fuel by over 95 percent.

Even after years of research and market development, biodiesel is not yet cost-competitive with petroleum diesel. In order to be so, market support and tax incentives are needed. I believe the provisions provided in this bill will help in leveling the field for biodiesel blends and help jumpstart this new industry.

The time is right for this investment. It is right for our rural economy, for our environment, and for our national energy security and I encourage my colleagues to join us in supporting the Biodiesel Promotion Act of 2003.

The second component of my package is the EPACT Alternative Fuel Flexibility Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Bond and Talent in introducing this legislation.

The purpose of this legislation is to place biodiesel fuel on equal footing with every other alternative motor fuel used in this nation.

The Energy Policy Act of 1992, EPACT, set a national objective to shift the focus of national energy demand away from imported oil toward renewable and domestically produced energy sources. When EPACT was passed in 1992, it recognized ethanol, natural gas, propane, electricity, and methanol as alternative fuels. The original list of alternative fuels did not include biodiesel because the technology had not been fully developed.

EPACT set a goal to replace 10 percent of petroleum-based fuels by 2000 and 30 percent by the year 2010. However, a GAO report issued in July of 2001 noted that ``limited progress has been made in increasing the numbers of alternative fuel vehicles, AFV, in the national vehicle fleet and the use of alternative fuels'' as compared to conventional vehicles and fuels.

We did not meet the original EPACT goals of replacing 10 percent of petroleum-based fuels by 2000. Today we are not on track to meet the goal of 30 percent by the year 2010. In fact, we haven't even come close, and that's partly a result of not allowing all alternative fuels to be used to meet the EPACT alternative fuel mandates.

This legislation will significantly increase the use of alternative fuels by allowing EPACT covered fleets to meet up to 100 percent of the EPACT purchase requirements through the use of biodiesel. Currently, covered fleets can only meet up to 50 percent of purchase requirements with biodiesel.

By offering an additional option for the use of alternative fuels, we will widen the possibilities for these fuels to be made more widely available. Fleets will continue to have the option to choose the complying vehicles and fuels that best meet their needs. This legislation is not expected to affect fleets that are currently using ethanol or natural gas. But this legislation does provide a further option for alternative fuel vehicles. Furthermore, it does not directly displace natural gas or ethanol sales, since biodiesel is used in medium- and heavy-duty trucks rather than light-duty vehicles.

By allowing fleets to meet 100 percent of their AFV requirement by using biodiesel, we'll take a positive step toward moving this country away from dependence on petroleum-based motor fuels and toward alternative motor fuels. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

The third bill I introduce today as part of my energy independence package is the Animal and Agricultural Waste Renewable Energy Production Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined today by Senators Hagel, Bond, and Kerry in introducing this legislation.

This legislation would provide a credit under Section 29 of the tax code for the production of fuels from animal and agricultural wastes.

Thanks to new technological developments, we can now produce significant quantities of alternative fuels from agricultural and animal wastes in an environmentally friendly manner. Production incentives are needed to assure implementation and commercialization of this new generation of technology.

Section 29 was originally enacted to provide an incentive to produce alternative and hard-to-reach fuels that could compete with fossil fuels and hopefully reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil. As originally enacted, a number of ``non-conventional fuels'' were eligible for the credit, including the following: oil from shale; oil from tar sands; natural gas from geo-pressured brine, coal seams, Devonian shale, or tight sands; liquid, gaseous or solid synthetic fuel from coal, including coke and coke by-products; gas from biomass, including wood; steam from solid agricultural by-products; and processed solid wood fuels.

Other biomass by-products, such as agricultural and animal oils and solids, also should qualify the same as liquid or gaseous synthetic fuels derived from coal.

New technological advances have been developed which will convert these biomass wastes efficiently to alternative fuels. The most readily available of these wastes are agricultural and animal wastes, municipal wastes, plastics, used tires, and forest product wastes. This production incentive opportunity would provide significant new annual quantities of alternative fuel to replace foreign imported oil and should be considered a government investment in the nation's future.

If these incentives are implemented, large marketable quantities of quality alternative fuel products can be produced as a replacement for foreign imported oil. These processes can achieve the desired results in an environmentally positive way that essentially converts all wastes to products and provides an answer for waste disposal problems. To achieve these results, financial incentives need be provided from the government. Section 29 should be extended to include alternative fuels produced from all biomass wastes and I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in supporting this legislation.

The fourth bill I am introducing today is the Capturing Landfill Gas for Energy Act of 2003. This legislation will provide a credit under either Section 29 or Section 45 of the tax code for the production of energy from landfill gas, LFG. It is designed to encourage additional collection and productive use of methane gas generated by garbage decomposing in America's landfills. LFG is a renewable fuel that can be used directly as an energy source for heating, as a clean burning vehicle fuel, as a hydrogen source for fuel cells. Furthermore, it can power generators to produce electricity.

Congress recognized the importance of LFG for energy diversity and national security by providing such a credit in 1980 and extending it for nearly two decades. With today's critical energy needs and emphasis on distributed generation, this incentive makes more sense than ever. Most of the 360 LFG projects that currently are operating were made economically feasible by the ``non-conventional-source fuel'' production tax credit under Section 29 of the tax code.

But since June 30, 1998, that credit to encourage construction of new LFG projects has been unavailable, and few have been constructed since that date. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that 600- 700 more LFG projects could be constructed nationwide if there were sufficient economic incentives in place to foster

their development. With such incentives, it is likely that about 55 new projects would be brought on line each year. Just one medium-sized project could provide three megawatts of electrical power capacity-- enough to meet the electricity needs of 3,000 homes each year.

In addition to the value of LFG as an important contribution to our overall energy strategy, there are compelling environmental reasons to encourage these projects. Uncontrolled landfill gas can create fire hazards and odors and can impair air quality. The methane in landfill gas is 21 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Even the large landfills that are required under the Clean Air Act to collect their gas and control non-methane organic compounds often find it more economic to simply flare or otherwise waste the gas rather than use the methane. Some smaller landfills are not required to collect the gas, and may continue to emit it for decades under the Clean Air Act. Thus, LFG projects not only reduce local and regional air pollution while yielding a renewable source of energy, they can also reduce the country's yearly emissions of greenhouse gases by a very substantial amount at a relatively small cost.

Unfortunately, the potential energy and environmental benefits of future LFG projects are substantial, but they will be lost without adequate LFG tax provisions to support project development. On average, the total capital cost of constructing an LFG-fueled electricity generating project is about $1 million per megawatt, and the annual operating and maintenance costs average another $150,000 per megawatt. The average capital cost of a new direct use fuel production and delivery project is about $2.5 million, with annual operation and maintenance costs of about $350,000.

My bill proposes sufficient, yet sensible, tax incentives to encourage these large investments, and I urge my colleagues to join me and support LFG tax credits.

Today I am also pleased to be joined by Senator Akaka in introducing the fifth component of my energy package--the Waste to Energy Utilization Act of 2003. This legislation will provide a credit under Section 45 of the tax code for new waste-to-energy facilities or new generating units at existing facilities. Such a tax credit encourages clean renewable electricity and promotes energy diversity, while helping cities meet the challenge of trash disposal.

Nearly 2000 communities nationwide rely on waste-to-energy facilities to safely dispose of trash and generate clean, renewable energy that meets the power need of more than two and a half million homes. The U.S. Conference of Mayors has repeatedly urged Congress to include provisions that promote waste-to-energy in tax legislation and they are joined by the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the Business Council for Sustainable Energy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the International Brotherhood of Boilermakers.

Arkansas stands with other environmentally conscious States in understanding that waste-to-energy technology saves valuable land and significantly reduces the amount of greenhouse gases that would have been released into our atmosphere without its operation. The volume of waste is reduced by greater than 90 percent in a waste-to-energy facility, and EPA has confirmed that more than 33 million tons of greenhouse gases are avoided annually by the combustion of municipal solid waste. Municipal solid waste is a sustainable source of clean, renewable energy.

Local governments spent about $1 billion over the past five years on air pollution control equipment to comply with EPA's Maximum Achievable Control Technology, MACT, standards required under the Clean Air Act. These retrofits have made waste-to-energy one of the cleanest power generators in the country. In June, EPA announced that these facilities have shown ``outstanding performance'' resulting in ``dramatic decreases'' in emissions, resulting in reductions of mercury emissions of more than 95 percent from a decade ago. Communities with waste-to- energy facilities recycle 33 percent of their trash, on average, and historically have more successful recycling programs than cities without waste-to-energy plants.

We must sustain a level marketplace to achieve energy diversity and economic growth. I believe this Senate should pass tax legislation that includes production tax credits to spur energy generation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join us and support this legislation.

The sixth bill I introduce today is the Resource Efficient Appliance Incentives Act of 2003. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by Senators Allard, Grassley, Harkin, Stabenow, Hagel, Levin, and DeWine.

This legislation will provide a tax credit for the production of super energy-efficient clothes washers and refrigerators if those appliances exceed new Federal energy efficiency standards. The tax credit would only be available for five years and would be capped for each manufacturer.

In 2001, the Department of Energy issued new energy efficiency standards for clothes washers. This agreement accompanies rules for higher efficiency refrigerators issued by the department two years ago. The new rules are significant because clothes washers, clothes dryers, and refrigerators account for approximately 15 percent of all household energy consumed in the U.S. annually. The tax incentives contained in this legislation are constructed to encourage manufacturers not only to exceed these new efficiency requirements, but to exceed them by up to 35 percent.

Tax incentives are essential to accelerate the production and market penetration of leading-edge appliance technologies that create significant environmental benefits. The need for super energy-efficient appliances is greater this year than at any time in the past 20 years. Over the life of the appliances, over 200 trillion BTUs of energy will be saved. This is the equivalent of taking 2.3 million cars off the road or making available for other uses the energy of six coal-fired power plants for a year.

In addition, the clothes washers will reduce the amount of water necessary to wash clothes by 870 billion gallons, an amount equal to the needs of every household in a city the size of Phoenix, Arizona for two years. The water savings attributable to these new technology machines is not based on some computer generated model but an actual case study that gathered data in the small community of Bern, KS by the Dept. of Energy's esteemed Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1998.

The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers estimates these super energy-efficient appliances could save the average family $100 per year--or $1,400 per family over the lifetime of the appliance. This legislation will create the incentives necessary to increase the production and sale of these super energy-efficient appliances in the short term while passing along energy savings to the American consumer.

As a DOE analysis indicates, high efficiency washers and refrigerators are significantly more expensive to manufacture than those that simply meet existing federal standards. Further, market surveys of consumers indicate that they are generally not willing to pay more for high efficiency appliances, even when it can be demonstrated that high efficiency appliances will generate greater savings in utility costs over time. The tax credit will provide an incentive for manufacturers to develop a greater selection of super efficient models that will appeal to consumers at all price points. In addition, to assure increased sales of these appliances, manufacturers will be encouraged to redirect their marketing and advertising resources toward the high efficiency models. Enactment of this legislation will bring immediate, significant, and lasting environmental benefits to the nation, and I encourage all of my colleagues to join us in supporting in this effort.

The final bill I am introducing today is the Gas Distribution Infrastructure Investment Act of 2003. This legislation will amend the Internal Revenue Code to modify the depreciation of natural gas pipelines, equipment, and infrastructure assets from 20 to 10 years.

America's demand for energy is expected to grow by 32 percent during the next 20 years. Consumer demand for natural gas will grow at almost twice that rate, due to its economic, environmental, and operational benefits. That level of natural gas use is almost 60

percent greater than the highest recorded level. To satisfy this projected demand, we must substantially expand our existing gas infrastructure. This is especially true with respect to the delivery sector. Higher capacity utilization of existing infrastructure will meet some of this increased demand, but the delivery sector still will require capital investments of at least $123 billion for infrastructure enhancement and additions.

Shrinking the lifetime over which an asset is depreciated does not change the amount of expense a company is allowed to claim over the asset's useful life, but simply shortens the expensing period for tax purposes. This shortened tax life generates higher cash flows in terms of reduced tax liability during the asset's early useful lifetime. Conversely, the cash flows are decreased, relative to the longer depreciation life, during the later part of the asset's useful life. The overall impact is zero on a gross basis.

I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Infrastructure development and expansion is crucial if America's homes are to continue to rely on clean-burning natural gas to heat their homes and fuel their appliances.

I ask unanimous consent that each of the seven bills I am introducing today be printed in the Record.